Posted: Apr 02, 2010 7:38 am
verbal pocketplay wrote:TimONeill wrote: While he was some preacher off in the boondocks of Galilee he was. But the minute he marched into their jurisdiction - Jerusalem - and started causing trouble under their noses while Pilate was in town and during Passover he immediately became a problem. Exactly how much of a role the Temple priesthood played in his arrest etc we can't know, but all the accounts agree they were involved.
you sound a bit like yoda in that first sentence ; ) but when i asked you what we could say about the historical biography of jesus, you agreed with me that "more or less" all we could say was his place of birth, his brother james, and the following he left behind.
so are we now saying that it is a fact that he caused trouble in the temple, or was tried by caiphus? or are we saying these accounts are probable?
We're saying if Jesus arrived in Jerusalem being proclaimed as the Messiah at a politically sensitive time and if he caused some kind of ruckus in the Temple then your claim that Caiaphus would have no reason to be bothered doesn't make sense. I'm not saying these things definitely happened, though they are entirely possible.
and when you say "all the accounts agree they were involved", are these accounts only the gospel accounts? because if so, we have good reason to doubt that those gospels accounts are accurate.
Fine. But when an element in them is found in all gospel traditions and in Paul (he mentions the Jewish leaders being involved in Jesus' death in 1 Thess. 2:14-16) then we have more reason to think it's there because its historical.
as mentioned, his temper tantrum in the temple, and his claims that it would be destroyed, are believed by credible, mainstream scholars to be invented by writers writing after the destruction of the temple.
By some. You can find some credible, mainstream scholars who hold pretty much any position you care to mention on this or any other matter. We don't know if this happened or not, but even if it didn't, simply turning up in Jerusalem while being hailed as the Messiah would do the trick any way.
and they believe that turning over a few tables and chewing out a few money lenders in a temple the size of 5 football fields with tens, if not hundreds, of thousands people around, would have been lost in the chaos that was the temple at passover. it was too insignificant an act. and jesus was too insignificant a rabble rouser for caiphus to notice. maybe not the romans though.
Sorry, but I can't think of any "credible, mainstream scholars" who makes such a silly argument. We have no idea of the scale of the demonstration in the Temple.
but even if we grant involvement by the priesthood, the degree of involvement is certainly important. its seems implausible it would have been anything other than very minimal (based on his insignificance, his otherworldly message, etc)
Sorry, but a guy turning up, proclaiming that God is coming to sweep away the "unrighteous" in an apocalypse and that he is the Messiah anointed by Yahweh to usher in this cleansing fire is not "insignificant" and his message is not "otherworldly". You don't seem to understand Jesus' apocalyptic message at all. He was not a mellow hippy preaching about how to go meekly to heaven. He was a blood and thunder preacher of an immanent end of the world where the high and mighty (that's the Sadducees) and the unrighteous before Yahweh (that's the Romans, amongst others) were going to be cleansed with fire and armies from heaven. Still think that's "insigificant"? Still can't see why they would want to nip him in the bud before Pilate did what he and other Prefects tended to do with these kinds of kooks and their followers? Still can't see why they would want to prevent a bloodbath in their streets at Passover time.
You don't seem to understand the socio-religious context here at all.
There weren't "dozens". There actually weren't any others at this time. And none of the others who popped up at other times were operating in Jerusalem and so weren't the priesthood's concern. We do know, however, that the Romans dealt with several of these others by sending in troops and killing them and their followers - this happened with the Egyptian prophet and the Samaritan. So are you seriously telling me that one of these guys turns up in their jurisdiction while the Prefect is in town with thousands of heavily armed troops and they would just say "ho hum"? Come on.
good to know. but did the priesthood have anything to do with john the baptists' murder?
Why would they have anything to do with the execution of someone who was preaching far outside of Jerusalem in the territory of another ruler?
i thought it was herod (could be very, very wrong here).
It was. John was preaching in his territory. The Priests were responsible for the civil administration of Jerusalem - that's all.
and why get worked up about a guy preaching "render to ceasar what is his" and "my kingdom is not of this world" and "blessed are the peacemakers", etc. he just doesn't seem that threatening.
See above. You don't seem to have properly grasped the implications of his message. He was an apocalypcist - not some mellow hippy. The Romans had a habit of unleashing troops on apocalypcists and their followers and for good reason - they didn't appreciate wild-eyed crazies preaching about how Yahweh was about to descend and sweep them away with holy fire.
but you have only given evidence suggesting that the romans had jesus killed, which i agree with, not that the priesthood had him killed.
I have given clear evidence why the Temple priests would be happy to hand Jesus over to the Romans for execution to avoid a wider reprisal. The gospels downplay the Roman responsibility for his execution as part of an attempt to distance Jesus from Jewish radicalism, but to go the other way and pretend the Jewish leaders would have play no part and had no incentive for handing him over doesn't make sense in the context of what we know.